Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (788)	7/14/2000 1:28:06 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Petz, slightly OT, I was at Fry's that 512M PC133 was comparable in cost per meg to 128M PC133, but 256M PC133 is more expensive. Why is that? There are many variables - what goes into the module, whose memory, Cas-2 / 3, ECC, non-ECC, Registered or not, 8, 16, 32 chips module. The mainstream technology is still 64 Mbit chip, with some companies doing 128 Mbis, some apparently skipping it. 256 Mbit is the new one. Generally, there is fairly high premium for the biggest chips, which now is 256 Mbit. Maybe the expensive 256 MB DIMM has 8 256 Mbit chips. Joe

To: Petz who wrote (788)	7/14/2000 11:11:38 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: but 256M PC133 is more expensive. Why is that? Hi John, I don't know. I can make some guesses, but they won't be more than that. It could just be different suppliers charging different prices. The 512meg part could have been in stock prior to the recent price increase (they're usually more expensive). The 256 meg part could have been a new part that is the first to reflect the latest price increase. Could the 256 meg part have been ECC or CAS2? Maybe someone else will be more helpful than I am. Regards, Dan